Southern Housing (202527975)

Decision
Case ID	202527975
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Southern Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 February 2026

Background

1. The resident moved into a ground floor 2-bedroom flat in September 2024. Shortly after moving in, she reported damp and mould in the property and problems with her garage flooding. Water penetrating the kitchen walls later resulted in the tiles falling off and water leaking into the plug socket. She complained when it delayed in resolving the issues and due to the damp and mould affecting her asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Garage repairs.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:

3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s garage repairs is outside our jurisdiction.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s garage repairs

6. We have not investigated this complaint. It was not about the landlord’s acts or omissions that relate to the resident’s occupation of her property, or her application to occupy it.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its policy. It did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or communicate effectively. It did not demonstrate any learning or provide a lasting solution.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

8. The landlord failed continuously to meet its complaint policy timescales. The offer it made was not proportionate to the level of service failure experienced by the resident.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff in the organisation The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 March 2026
2	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the ground works are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident	No later than 16 March 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property for any other causes of damp and mould. To identify what additional remedial work may be required and produce a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely causes of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair and resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) The likely timescales to commence and complete the work Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works	No later than 16 March 2026
4	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,315 made up as follows: £715 the landlord previously offered the resident through its complaint handling process £500 for the likely distress and inconvenience for the further delays following its final response in its handling of the damp and mould £100 for the likely distress and inconvenience of its handling of her complaint This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
24 February 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said it had failed to deal with repairs, damp and mould since she moved in on 15 September 2024. She told the landlord she had “severe asthma” and was concerned it would cause her breathing problems. She said most of the kitchen electrics were broken preventing her from using her washing machine. While several people inspected, many repairs had not progressed.
04 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for its delay in addressing her repairs. It identified further works when attending to the sockets on 19 March 2025. These were under review and it would update her on 11 April 2025. It put delays down to the complexity of the works, the additional assessments and quotes needed. In resolution it provided an action plan of works and some estimated completion dates. For the dates unknown it committed to update her by 11 April 2025. It offered £390 compensation, £350 was for inconvenience, £15 for chasing updates and £25 for its delayed complaint response.
24 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said repair appointments agreed in its stage 1 complaint response had not been kept and its communication had been poor.
14 July 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised it had not completed agreed repairs from stage 1. It had sent another surveyor to assess the repairs. They reported guttering and roofing works were complete. Contractors were repairing her kitchen, following its resolution of the leak. It apologised it did not tell her it was not attending on 11 April 2025. It said plans were underway to improve its communication across the organisation. It provided an action plan for repairs and committed to all kitchen works being completed by 31 July 2025. In addition to the £390 compensation offered at stage 1, it offered a further £325 compensation making a total offer of £715. The £325 was broken down as follows: £20 for its missed appointment (April 2025) £60 for repair failings £45 for service failings £25 for complaint handling (stage 1) £50 for complaint handling (stage 2) £125 for inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final response and asked us to investigate. She wants the landlord to complete all repairs and provide a lasting solution to the damp and mould.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Garage repairs
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The resident complained about the landlord’s delay in repairing a broken door to her garage and stop it from flooding.
10. We can only consider complaints about a landlord’s acts or omissions that relate to a resident’s occupation of their property, or their application to occupy it. The landlord does not charge the resident for her garage and it is not part of her tenancy or her home. This complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

11. The resident told us that her asthma and breathing was affected by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the damp and mould. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a claim via the courts. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

12. The resident complained that the landlord had not resolved the damp and mould she had reported 5 months earlier. Nor had it addressed a leaking drainpipe, which she believed could be the cause. This was despite her informing it she had severe asthma and breathing problems.
13. Government guidance on damp and mould explains that damp and mould can affect anyone’s health and should be dealt with quickly. It is additionally important for people who are more vulnerable to the health impacts, which includes those with asthma. The landlord’s damp and mould policy supports the guidance. Its policy considers damp and mould an emergency hazard when it poses an immediate health risk to vulnerable residents. In these cases, it commits to an immediate response.
14. Despite the resident’s health concerns, the landlord did not open a damp and mould case until 16 working days after her report. She said it agreed an inspection date with her for 13 November 2024. However, on the day it attended and told her it had closed her case and cancelled its inspection. The absence of a damp inspection report or any follow‑up works for this period, supported her account of events. Without inspecting her property, it was unable to assess any risks or hazards.
15. The resident reported problems with the electrics not working in her kitchen in November 2024. This included water leaking into an electric socket. Although the landlord attended, it could not fix the issue as it was linked to the wider damp problem. It did not repair the electrics until it completed remedial works to her kitchen in July 2025, which was a response time of 8 months. This delay likely caused significant detriment as she was unable to use appliances including her washing machine during this period.
16. The resident suspected the leaking drainage pipe, reported in September 2024, was causing the damp and mould. Despite this the landlord did not inspect it until 9 December 2024. It then took a further 39 working days to raise the works, completing the repair on 11 February 2025. This was 96 working days from the date the resident reported it. This did not meet its ‘immediate’ damp and mould response time or its 20‑working‑day target for responsive repairs.
17. The landlord raised a damp inspection on 6 January 2025, which it attended on 20 January 2025. Again, it did not provide the urgent response required for a resident subject to the health impacts of damp and mould.
18. The inspection found that the property had water penetration. This was caused by water logging at the rear and side of the property when it rained, which breached the damp proof course (DPC). It said the brickwork needed repair. It ordered scaffolding on 29 January 2025 to inspect further, but it was not clear why it took 8 working days to order this. It was not evident it progressed any brickwork repairs.
19. The resident said the landlord failed to communicate with her. Its damp and mould policy says that once it has assessed the damp, it will discuss its recommendations with the resident. It also says it will send a copy of its action plan within three working days. There was no evidence this happened.
20. Furthermore, the policy commits the landlord to work with residents to ensure effective communication. Yet the resident had to contact the landlord multiple times during this period to request information, updates, and report further issues. This caused her avoidable time and trouble.
21. A further inspection in February 2025, (exact date unknown) found that the leaking pipework was not causing the damp in the walls. A collapsed gulley had blocked the drainage causing wastewater to overflow. It also found rainwater from the driveway was running in the wrong direction. Both issues caused flooding around the property, which was penetrating the walls causing the damp and mould. The report did not appear to recognise that it had identified the flooding as the cause a month earlier.
22. The landlord proposed that its groundwork team dig out the gulley to the side and rear of the property to resolve the problem. Works were scheduled for 11 April 2025. The resident escalated her complaint at the beginning of May 2025 when it failed to attend the appointment, contact her to cancel, or provide another date.
23. While its final response apologised for the failed appointment and its poor communication, it did not address completing the work. Consequently, its complaint process did not resolve the substantive issue of the damp and mould or the required flooding works it had identified.
24. The landlord’s delay in addressing the damp resulted in a large section of kitchen tiles falling off the wall, causing further damage. The need to replace the tiles had been identified five months earlier. Its inaction likely caused further avoidable detriment to the resident.
25. The landlord’s final response committed to carry out the remedial works to the kitchen by 31 July 2025. This was within 20 working days of its response, meeting its repairs policy requirements. However, it failed to explain how it would resolve the root cause of the damp and mould or when it would complete the gulley work. Neither did it mention the damp and mould remedial works to the other areas she reported in the property.
26. In a recent update (February 2026) the resident said she still had damp and mould in her home and no groundwork had taken place. The landlord’s records do not refer to the groundworks again until 18 December 2025, when it attempted to arrange an appointment to start the work. This demonstrates it had not completed the work 6 months after its final response. As it was aware from its own inspection reports that the flooding and groundworks were the root cause of the problem this delay was avoidable. Its further delay in completing the work does not show it fully considered the resident’s health vulnerabilities.
27. The landlord’s final response acknowledged failings in its communication and repair service at both stages of its complaint process. To put matters right it agreed an action plan for repair and offered the resident £640 compensation. Although these actions can be said to have put things right for the resident, it failed to resolve the substantive issue following its final response. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress cannot be determined under such circumstances. This is particularly the case where the landlord has not demonstrated specific learning points to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future.
28. The landlord’s offer was, therefore, not proportionate to the cumulative level of service failure or the extended delays and detriment to the resident. This has led us to a failure finding. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation and complete the necessary works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

29. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days respectively. It must agree any extensions to this with the resident, which should be no more than 10 working days without good reason. The landlord’s complaint policy meets most of the Code’s requirements with the exception of a time limit on extended responses.
30. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days late. It then issued its stage 1 response within 21 working days. This exceeded its 10‑working‑day policy timescale. While it had arranged an extension in line with its policy, it did not meet its new deadline and extended the date again. It acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £25 compensation.
31. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request 21 working days late. This significantly exceeded its 5 working-day commitment. It was again unable to meet its policy response time on 2 June 2025 and arranged a 20-working day extension. This was compliant with the timescales of its policy and the Code.
32. However, the landlord then failed to meet its revised deadline and extended the date by a further 10 working days. This meant its stage 2 complaint response time was 55 working days. This significantly exceeded its policy commitment and was not Code compliant.
33. The landlord acknowledged its failings at stage 2 and offered the resident £50 compensation for its delay. This made a total offer of £75 compensation for its complaint handling.
34. When there are failings by a landlord, we consider whether the compensation offered to put things right resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In assessing this, we consider whether its offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
35. The landlord delayed its acknowledgements and extended its response times at both stages of its complaint process, and failed to meet either deadline. This showed it had taken no learning from its stage 1 failings and had not improved its service. Furthermore, it failed to carry out actions set out in its responses or resolve her complaint. This likely caused the resident frustration and distress.
36. We acknowledge the landlord attempted to put things right. However, any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result. Its offer of £75 was not proportionate to the complaint failings identified in our investigation. This has led us to a finding of service failure and we have ordered it to pay a further £100.

Learning

37. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the failings in its complaint handling, it continued to delay its responses. It would benefit from a review of this complaint to understand why deadlines were consistently missed. It needs to ensure this is not reflective of a wider problem with its complaint handling process.
38. The landlord needs to ensure its staff are aware of the risks damp and mould pose to people with certain health conditions. When doing so it needs to stress the importance that these cases are prioritised, timescales are minimised and there is oversight of repairs to completion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39.  The landlord did not provide a repair log/history with dates, timescales or completions to evidence its repair actions.

Communication

40. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It should ensure that where its policy commits to action plans and updates that it adheres to this. It is important to keep resident’s update on the actions or and repairs.